Qamar Zia & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAJEEV SINGH
Outcome
Allowed
For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 323, 352, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana…
- Para 99. For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and entire proceedings as well as any consequential proceedings arising out of proceedings of Case No. 298/2016 (State v. Laxmi Pal & ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 367 of 2015 pending u/s…
Judgment
Vakalatnama filed by Shri Siddharth Sinha, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party No.2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 528, BNSS (Formerly S. 482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings as well as any consequential proceedings arising out of proceedings of Case No. 298/2016 (State v. Laxmi Pal & ors.), in Case Crime No. 367 of 2015 pending u/s 323, 352, 506, IPC, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 19.09.2025 a direction was given to the trial court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned trial court had verified the contents of compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has duly been verified by the trial court vide report/order dated 29.09.2025.
Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the trial court. 2 A482 No. 8800 of 2025
Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.
In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
Operative part
For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and entire proceedings as well as any consequential proceedings arising out of proceedings of Case No. 298/2016 (State v. Laxmi Pal & ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 367 of 2015 pending u/s 323, 352, 506, IPC, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow, including the summoning order dated 18.01.2016 passed in the said case number and the Chargesheet bearing No. 198 of 2015 dated 10.10.2015 in the said case, are hereby quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to learned trial Court, forthwith. October 15, 2025 A.Nigam (Rajeev Singh,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 323, 352, 506.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.